What do you think is Shakespeare's intention of creating Shylock in The Merchant of Venice?

I think that Shakespeare harbours a sole intention on creating Shylock, the main antagonist of Merchant of Venice. To begin, Shylock is caricatured as a Jewish stereotype, someone who can incur wrath and animosity among the Elizabethan audiences. Shylock, besides his Jewish stereotype, is pictured as a bloodthirsty madman, as well as a tragic figure whose Jewish heritage and usurious ways of life is spat upon. As such, Shakespeare was probably seeking to appeal to his audience in the form of Shylock.

He is a menacing figure in the plot itself, threatening the prosperity of Venetian businessmen when he warns of the impending danger to the city if the Duke denies him his entitlement to the bond which is by bending the law in favour of Antonio. Shylock states, “I have possess'd your Grace//of what I purpose,//And by our holy Sabbath have I sworn//To have the due and forfeit of my bond.//If you deny it, let the danger light//Upon your charter and your city's freedom.”

What fuels the Elizabethan audience fury is his infallible façade, one that reflects upon his stubbornness when he refutes that there is any reason in wanting to extract a pound of flesh. He proclaims, “Some men there are love not a gaping pig;//Some that are mad if they behold a cat;//And others, when the bagpipe sings i' the nose,//Cannot contain their urine; for affection,//Mistress of passion, sways it to the mood//Of what it likes or loathes. Now, for your answer://As there is no firm reason to be render'd,//Why he cannot abide a gaping pig;//Why he, a harmless necessary cat;//Why he, a wauling bagpipe; but of force//Must yield to such inevitable shame//As to offend, himself being offended;//So can I give no reason, nor I will not,//More than a lodg'd hate and a certain loathing//I bear Antonio, that I follow thus//A losing suit against him. Are you answered?” This speech is but an absolute denial to the fact that his quest for Antonio’s flesh is fuelled by the hatred which was culminated as a result of Antonio’s humiliation of him being a Jew.

Perhaps the most conflicting aspect of Shakespeare’s portrayal of Shylock would be the frequent mentions of the prejudice and ill-treatment he had suffered at the hands of Antonio. Though Shylock might be spat upon by the Elizabethan audience, in the present world, the animosity Antonio had shown towards Shylock offers a different perspective of the story, a perspective than incurs sympathy for Shylock. Shylock’s famous monologue on how a Jew is human and his quest for vengeance, is a product of the insults that had battered him in the past, further implying that Shylock was not a born monster but rather, someone who has been abused to the point where he has succumbed to there abuse and thus returns the “lessons” to the Christians, if not better. Elizabethan audience might also have scorned at Shylock’s monologue in light of the anti-Semitic sentiments at that time, thus, engaging a wider audience.

In conclusion, Shakespeare’s intention of creating Shylock was probably to appeal to the Elizabethan audience, with the influence of anti-Semitic sentiments adding to the attractiveness of a play with contradicting elements which perhaps provide a different perspective besides the typical Jewish stereotype.

How to Raise a Global Kid

In this article, Jim Rogers raises a few critical but precise points on America’s faltering connections in this rapidly globalising world, as well as the significance of raising “global kids”, a new generation of youths who are able to bridge the gap between the east and the west. Indubitably, we have to agree with his point of view. As we all know, Asia is indeed the future. America has amassed a tremendous debt of $14.46 million, far worse than in 2006, and its debt ceiling ever rising. America may be the superpower at the moment but Jim Rogers is critical of this, as America is disregarding the rapid pace of globalisation, during which the veil between “economies and business; of politics and conflict; of fashion, technology, and music” becomes less and less discernible, a great threat to America’s prosperity. If America continues to be disillusioned by its title of a superpower, it risks being segregated from the rest of the world.

With expeditious globalisation, the prosperity of a nation cannot solely depend on mere bilateral ties with other nations. This simple theory has sent America into decline. America needs a revolution, and it means nurturing a generation of “global citizens”, who have the ability to bridge western and eastern influences and cultures. As it lies on the crossroad of east and west, Singapore has always emphasised on the significance of bilingualism. Over the years, besides English as the main medium of instruction, mother tongue has also established itself in the foundation of Singaporean education, setting the impetus for our nation’s rapid advancement as an Asia-Pacific hub for quality education and healthcare services. Perhaps America should follow a similar approach, not just through the teaching of foreign languages, but a protracted immersion of its youths in other cultures, subtly constructing a global perspective.

Conversely, some people might argue that English would still remain in its position as a global business language and that America will still be the main driving force behind globalisation such that abandoning the English language would not be practical. However, we cannot deny the fact that one still has to be capable of immersing themselves in the Asian culture and language, since fast industrialising Asian countries would eventually be the main contributors to expeditious globalisation. Certainly, it would be more adequate if one were to equip themselves with bilingualism, since it would definitely pay off as one would be able to bridge western and eastern influences, the mainstay of a globalised economy.

In conclusion, Jim Rogers’ perception that America’s lack of interaction and immersion with the rest of the world is salient, addressing the concerns of the rapidly globalising world. We cannot deny the fact that bilingualism and the ability to immerse would be able to bring intangible benefits to countries and more importantly, America.

Singapore's Education System: Is an ideal one possible?

Without a doubt, Janelle Lee’s letter is precise and accurate, in terms of pinpointing the education system’s inflexibility in teaching methods, along with the failure of moral education. It definitely voices the opinions of so many students, who have been sick and exhausted by the oppressive system, which has so often been dictated by the Ministry of Education’s “optimised” syllabus. The inefficiency of rote learning is apparent in the real world – people can only be successful if they can think and innovate and our rigid education system has done the opposite, liberating us of our right to voice out our opinions. To be truthful, I have to say that our system is like a totalitarian organisation, governed by oppressive policies which inadvertently suppress the right to question the “questionables”.

On Janelle’s point of inflexibility, I do think there are education systems out there which are capable of rectifying this problem. Singapore’s education system has a method of force-feeding students with information, such that they are not given the freedom to express themselves at all. Our education system is supposed to nurture leaders of the future but at this rate, how are we to discover individuals who have the courage to rectify the flaws in the policies of the nation? Where are we to seek for people who dare to be the change? This system is not capable of accommodating the inquisitiveness and creativity of the human mind, the two most critical aspects of progress, and this underlying cause for concern has to be eliminated. If we were to study the Finnish education system, which stands on the apex, it provides full autonomy to schools by not imposing a standardized syllabus and offering educational institutions the privilege to structure their education model, often addressing local concerns. The long-term cultivation of the system has resulted in a near-perfect one which advocates knowledge, as well as thinking.

Additionally, I believe our system is also rather exam-oriented which focuses on rote learning, rather than critical thinking. Rote learning, in the eyes of the Singapore education system, is where students are expected to memorise facts from the textbook and be able to regurgitate all these information during tests, in the hope that they can understand and apply them. The truth is: nobody will do so if we are not oriented towards thinking. This gives rise to many other problems, such as the misconception that “As long as I get my A1s, nothing else matters.” It definitely reflects upon a serious flaw in our system. Living in a globalised world, we need talents who are rational enough to think of methods to overcome threats and challenges. Certainly, there is too much emphasis on results and not process, which inevitably gives rise to sheep-thinking, where no one would be willing to challenge the norms.

Moral education is an integral part of Asian culture, where one of the most celebrated philosophers, Confucius, originated from. In Janelle’s letter, she mentions that morals cannot be instilled in students through force-feeding by books and files. However, this can be contradicted by the fact that much of Confucius’ teachings were passed down in the form of books and scrolls. The only difference was the socio-economic conditions of modern and ancient times. Youths these days fail to be inspired by moral principles solely because of the insignificance of them in our world. Do moral principles grant you a place in university? Do they grant us a job which pays extravagant salaries? No. The only way through which we can inculcate moral principles in youths these days would be through effective parenting techniques that subtly influence them in their moral principles, along with sufficient support from teachers in schools which can fuse both to develop a coherent teaching style which hopefully does not involve the use of books, given the ineffectiveness of it.

To conclude, the best education system Singapore should adopt would be one which, besides imparting knowledge, nurtures the power of the human mind, through infusing the curriculum with cognitive thinking and reasoning skills, thus equipping us for the future.

Is there a difference between treating water as a human right and as a commodity? Should water be treated as a human right or as a commodity?

Water, a human right or a commodity? Since the dawn of civilization, water has been indispensable. In fact, it is no doubt the epitome of all life on the planet. That being said, water consists of 75% of our world’s surface, but only 3% of that is drinkable. It is a renewable source but only when water is managed carefully. The continuous pollution of water has plagued the world for decades, since the rise of industrialisation and it continues to thrive in our globalised world today, affecting the livelihood of countless people in derelict areas. There definitely exists a clear distinction between establishing water as a human right and a commodity, the former placing certain responsibilities upon governments to ensure that people can enjoy "sufficient, safe, accessible and affordable water, without discrimination" while the latter distinguishes water to be dependent on the market itself, indirectly contributing to privatization, an aspect of capitalism. I believe that water should be established as a human right.

Life is sustained by water. Humans, as aqueous creatures, are dependent on water for sustenance. Water cannot be substituted, unlike some other forms of resources. The preservation of life is solely dependent on water. While food is also a fundamental element to sustain life, food is a variation of different items which can effectively substitute one another. It makes water all the more unique, as a universal source of life. Our right to live and other human rights are derived from our access to water. This is verified by the United Nations committee which stated that “The human right to drinking water is fundamental to life and health. Sufficient and safe drinking water is a precondition for the realization of human rights...a limited natural resource and a public commodity fundamental to life and health.”

If water was treated as a commodity, it would inevitably lead to privatization, one of the main aspects of capitalism. Privatisation of water systems would eventually lead to adverse effects, such as lower quality in water and increase in price. Notable examples would include South Africa’s instigation of the privatization of companies, which in turn led to a fatal cholera outbreak. In 1997, the World Bank assisted Philippines in the privatization of its local water system. Astoundingly, more than 6 years later, water prices hiked by 81% and 36% in the east and west regions respectively. These inefficient and extravagant water supply systems eventually led to diminished access to households who were unable to afford water, resulting in cholera and other water-borne diseases.

However, some people might argue that establishing water as a commodity would in turn influence citizens in wealthy states to limit their water consumption, since water would be dependent on the market, which is determined by supply and demand. One notable example would be Singapore, where “The Government's approach is to let the pricing of water show its true economic value”, therefore, instilling awareness in Singaporeans that water is precious. Along with that, the government does consider their responsibility of providing access to clean water at an affordable price, as they do offer subsidies for its citizens. However, with that being said, we must consider the situation in impoverished states ravaged by conflicts or poverty. In these cases, we cannot impose water as a commodity as it would inevitably add fuel to the fire by expecting them to pay for water. With these citizens unable to fulfil even their daily needs, it is undoubtedly defective if water was to be dependent on the market itself.

In conclusion, water should be treated as a human right, rather than a commodity. Water is unequivocally the stem of life. If water was treated as a commodity, it would lead to exploitation. Although, it might be feasible to allow water to be treated as a commodity in wealthy states in Singapore, in situations such as in impoverished states, it could prove to be fatal.

Should the giving of weekly days off for maids be legislated in Singapore?

Minister of Community, Youth and Sports Halimah Yacob recently called for the legislation of weekly days off for maids working in Singapore, sparking off a heated debate among Singaporeans. The term “maids”, also known as domestic workers, have existed in Singapore even before the transition into the 21st Century. Domestic workers were brought in during Singapore’s stages in economic development so as to meet the demand for domestic labour as more women relinquished their positions as house makers to join the workforce. I believe that weekly leaves for maids should be legislated in Singapore, if not; cash compensation should be offered by employers who are unable to do so.

Firstly, one of the most fundamental rationales over the legislation of weekly days off for domestic workers would be that the absence of it would eventually result in the exploitation of maids and eventually, affecting their health and productivity. Besides, employers cannot expect these domestic workers to carry out their duties as per normal every day. As human beings, we would definitely expect to be given rest after a hectic schedule, much less the maids, who face a lifestyle occupied with manual labour. Some employers even make them perform work which falls outside their call of duty, which emphasizes on the need to implement this law. This fundamental legislation also seeks to protect vulnerable domestic workers who are still suffering in silence. Eventually, we have to face up to the truth that even Singaporeans do struggle with daily household responsibilities, advocating the obligation of granting domestic workers leave.

Ultimately, it could boil down to labour rights and even international relations. The Ministry of Manpower, despite implementing compulsory rest days for foreign labour, has not enforced the law of a mandatory off day for foreign domestic workers. Despite intense pressures from labour organisations around the world, the government has failed to do so. In the long run, it could have adverse effects on international relations if the exploitation of maids gets out of hand. Countries may not be obliged to send their workers to Singapore, for fear over the profiteering of employers.
Contrary to the above, some individuals might think that weekly leaves for maids should not be legislated in Singapore, which stems from their concern over the delinquency of maids. Recent cases regarding this issue have surfaced, questioning whether there is a need for the legislation of this law. However, we should note that the concerns of these individuals are derived from the policies of the Ministry of Manpower, which puts the burden of responsibility on the employer, if the maid escapes or gets impregnated and it is the Ministry’s responsibility to identify and rectify these loopholes in their policy.

In conclusion, I presume that the government should make the law of weekly days off for foreign domestic workers compulsory. Firstly, it should serve as a deterrent to protect vulnerable workers from exploitation of employers. Secondly, the refusal to do so could result in the breakdown of international ties. Although some might believe there isn’t a need to enforce this, their concerns are perhaps derived from the Ministry of Manpower’s policy that puts responsibility on the employers and the Ministry of Manpower should rectify this if they want to create a safe environment, as well as to raise labour standards.